SC to consider review petitions against the same-sex marriage verdict on July 10
The review petitions will be considered by a five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, in the judges’ chambers.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will on July 10 consider a bundle of petitions seeking a review of its October 17 judgment that refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples and said only Parliament and state legislatures can validate their marital unions.
The petitions will be considered by a five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, in the judges’ chambers. The bench will also comprise justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and PS Narasimha. Justices Khanna and Nagarathna have replaced the retired members of the previous bench – justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ravindra Bhat.
A review petition comes up before the judges through circulation in their chambers and is mostly decided without an open court hearing. However, if the judges find some merit in the review plea, they can allow an open court hearing and oral arguments. In this case, the petitioners have demanded an open court hearing.
By a 3-2 majority, the October 17 judgment refused to accord legal sanction to same-sex marriage and also declined to grant constitutional protection to civil unions and adoption rights for queer couples, noting that mandating the State to grant recognition or legal status to some unions will violate the doctrine of separation of powers and could lead to unforeseeable consequences.
Also Read: Why the Supreme Court’s minority order on same-sex marriage verdict raised hopes
While CJI Chandrachud and justice Kaul ruled in favour of recognition of civil unions — considered the world over as the first step towards granting full marriage equality — and adoption rights, justices Bhat, Kohli and Narasimha held that the right to a civil union cannot be assigned the status of a constitutionally protected right when the right to marry has not been given the same status.
Udit Sood, a US-based lawyer who was among the 52 petitioners seeking marriage equality in India, filed the first review petition in the matter on November 1, complaining that the majority judgment of the court was “manifestly unjust” and “self-contradictory” in not protecting the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community despite acknowledging its travails.
“The majority ruling is self-contradictory, facially erroneous and deeply unjust. The majority found that queer Indians endure severe discrimination at the hands of the State, declared that discrimination must be prohibited, and then did not take the logical next step of enjoining the discrimination,” Sood said in his petition filed through Karanjawala & Co.
In his petition, Sood picked out parts of the judgment authored by justice Bhat, complaining that though the judgment extensively wrote on “unjust discriminatory consequences” and violation of the fundamental rights of the LGBTQ+ community, it failed to take the logical next step of prohibiting the discrimination.
Terming the contradiction an error apparent on the face of the record, Sood said that it was nothing short of “abdication of the duty” by the Supreme Court to not correct a wrong after having acknowledged it.
“Our Constitution primarily tasks this Hon’ble court — not the respondents (Centre) — with upholding fundamental rights. To find that the petitioners are enduring discrimination, but then turn them away with best wishes for the future, conforms neither with this Hon’ble court’s constitutional obligation towards queer Indians nor with the separation of power contemplated in our Constitution,” said his petition, disputing the majority view that the government should take appropriate steps to remove the stigma of discrimination and protect queer couples.
Almost a week later, Supriya Chakravarty and Abhay Dang also moved the top court seeking a review of the October 17 judgment. They argued that constitutional courts are empowered to review statutory law to ensure its conformity with constitutional values and that such courts do not need to wait for the legislature to enact or amend laws to recognise same-sex marriage.
“There is a right to a relationship, a right to union, and a right to civil union under the Constitution, yet the majority decision fails to secure any legal status for such rights… The bench unanimously finds that the exclusion of queer couples from the existing statutory regime is discriminatory, yet the majority decision grants no relief,” complained the petition.
The top court’s ruling on October 17 unanimously held that the right to marry was not a fundamental right, and that it was beyond the remit of courts to issue a positive direction to the legislature to characterise same-sex marriages and queer relationships through a new instrument of law.
The judgments — separately authored by the CJI, and justices Kaul, Bhat and Narasimha — also refused to annul or read down the provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA) to include non-heterosexual couples within its fold.
The judges, however, were divided in deciding how far a court can go despite acknowledging that queerness is not an “urban, elitist concept” and required the State to ascertain protection for such couples.
While the CJI and justice Kaul maintained that the right to enter into a union by queer couples is a constitutionally protected right and that the State has an obligation to recognise such civil unions and grant them benefit under law, including adoption rights, the other three judges overruled this view.